Can atheists really go to hell?

[Jenyar]

Altec,

It's no secret that some people have not progressed beyong a literal interpretation of the laws, but the fact is that the laws are not all there is. Even a loose interpretation of some of the laws still gives rise to problems.

But what did Jesus do? He tightened the noose. He said that just hating your neighbour secretly is already a sin punishable by the penalty for murder.

That's because the law does not and can never bring freedom. You don't even need to quote from the Bible, like that person did. If speeding is a crime, then does it mean driving 121 kph in a 120 zone is also strictly a crime? As you can see, that's missing the point of why there are laws. And that's what Jesus pointed out to those religious leaders seeking to attain perfection by following every law to the letter.

If Christ didn't come to fulfil the requirements of the law, even our best intention - our most concerted efforts - would have been in vain. It's no secret that some of the laws described in the Bible are no longer applicable - either culturally or legally. That's not because they're not valid anymore - it's because their validity lies somewhere else.

 

[Jenyar]

I ask myself: "What am I doing that I could say that I love c20?"

Does that mean you are powerless to care about him, even if you wanted to? I know what you mean, that it's not a practical option. But what about prayer? Isn't praying for someone, even when you don't know them, an act of caring?

 

[water]

Does that mean you are powerless to care about him, even if you wanted to? I know what you mean, that it's not a practical option. But what about prayer? Isn't praying for someone, even when you don't know them, an act of caring?

It may be for you.
I call it "a kind inclination". And mind you, I hold that kind inclination in high esteem.

I don't like the way the terms "love" and "care" are being stretched.

Stretched so wide that they sometimes, in an actual case, lose all meaning and importance.

 

[Jenyar]

Stretched so wide that they sometimes, in an actual case, lose all meaning and importance.

I agree with you completely. But 1 Cor. 13 doesn't allow it to be stretched, it just makes is contain more meaning. And God allows us to exhibit love in ways that would seem otherwise impractical.

 

[Katazia]

Spuriousmonkey,

Christianity, like any other richly detailed mythology that has no basis in reality, inevitably succumbs to internal inconsistencies and multiple imaginary interpretations. The Christian concept of Hell - ideas that have been stolen and plagiarized from other mythologies is a myth within a myth.

The idea that Hell is a place of eternal torment (the primary theme and misconception throughout this thread) is not supported by the bible. This article provides and in depth analysis of the history of Hell, its variations, and how it is referenced in the bible.

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/TheBibleHell.shtml

The final conclusion is simply that hell is simply death or the grave.

So do atheists go to hell? Surprisingly for Christianity, the myth has accidentally stumbled on some truth since hell is simply death and we all die then not only do atheists go to hell but then so does everyone else.

But the Christian myth then goes further, since it calls hell the FIRST death – the second death is perhaps a more interesting myth.

Enjoy
Kat

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Interesting,


why is the myth on hell so dominant and continuously propagated as an concept?

 

[Katazia]

Oh that seems obvious I would think. It is an inevitable extension of the heaven myth, a place of perfection must of course have an opposite.

Kat

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Hmmm...

what about the fear factor?


Did the church use Hell as a concept to spread fear for god and to increase their own influence on the people?

 

[c20H25N3o]

C20,

To first make up for something from a previous post:

I said:


To this you replied:


And what started this train of thought was this you said:



At the time, it seemed to me that "embracing love in its eternity" and "taking the gift of eternal life" was *most obvious* to you, a thing that goes without saying.
My point is that this is not obvious to everyone.

And when you said "rejecting love means that you live in darkness": I don't reject love. Just because I don't believe in a Christian God does not mean that I reject love.
And you can say that I live in darkness, if you must. I don't think so. And most of all: Daren't you even try to judge me. You know next to nothing about me.


And for your last question:



LOVE, sweetie, LOVE.

Love, not words. Love, not eternity. Love: it is the simple everyday things of real everyday life, and not some distant abstractions.

I deeply resent the thought that I should say to you, for example, that I love you, even in a Christian way.

I ask myself: "What am I doing that I could say that I love c20?"
Well, I don't see myself *doing* anything that would justify me saying that I love you. So I don't say that I love you.
If you'd get a PM from me everyday, and we'd have lunch together at least once a week, and do stuff, and I'd never forget your birthday and make you a nice present ... yeah, then I would say that I *love* you.
As long as I am only typing this post, I am only trying to be a communicator, and a well-intended one. That's not love.


NB: I'm not trying to charm you or anything. I only used a more personalized example to get my point across better.

Hehe charm me lol. I do think you are charming but thats my personal interpretation of you from your words and the way you put them across but thats not the issue I guess.
I agree with your idea of love. It should be simple. As simple as a friend visiting you when you were sick
I am not saying for one moment that you should love me or anyone else for the hell of it, however if you saw me down a ditch and I was going to die down there very quickly, would you pull me out even if it meant you might slip in yourself.
If your answer is 'Yes' then I would thank you and thank God for you because you had showed a great love. The thing for me is that since we at least agree that 'Love' is the greatest thing of all, why shouldnt I accept that we were made with one express purpose i.e. to Love eachother.
If 'not' loving eachother brings us unhappiness then in that state I want to perish and be no more, I have lost my will to live and I accept death. However if we live in love I find I want to live forever. Love would seem fleeting and fickle if its lifespan was measured in my mortal years. It would itself be a lie in my eyes as it would present me with something most excellent and sacred only to rip it from my being 70 years hence.
When I say who wouldnt accept love, who wouldnt take eternal life, I was assuming that it was being presented to that person in a way that made the truth of love undeniable.


peace

c20

 

[Katazia]

Hmmm...

what about the fear factor?

Did the church use Hell as a concept to spread fear for god and to increase their own influence on the people?

I read an article some years ago that reviewed the history of Christianity and showed that for most of the past 2000 years it was the normal preaching technique to emphasize the terror of hell and that God is a wrathful God, etc. This seemed to be the primary tactic for recruiting Christians and maintaining their beliefs. The wishy-washy love story really didn’t seem to be very effective in past centuries where life was far harsher than we have come to expect in our modern world.

The current trend and perspective that Christianity is all about love appears to be just a modern emphasis, even though that philosophy has always been there it was simply not pushed until recently.

Kat

 

[Jenyar]

The current trend and perspective that Christianity is all about love appears to be just a modern emphasis, even though that philosophy has always been there it was simply not pushed until recently.

That's because the love story is redundant without the reality that death is not final. It makes no sense to tell the good news about Christ's life without there is no bad news. It's just recently that the bad news has become non-PC.

 

[Katazia]

Jenyar,

That's because the love story is redundant without the reality that death is not final.

What reality? It is still a baseless fantasy and false hope.

As we learn more about how the brain works we are seeing even less reason to speculate that souls and spirits might exist.

Kat

 

[water]

c20

I am not saying for one moment that you should love me or anyone else for the hell of it, however if you saw me down a ditch and I was going to die down there very quickly, would you pull me out even if it meant you might slip in yourself.

I have never been in such a situation yet, but I have helped rescue two dogs from a pool of very dirty dirty water, and yes, I was all messy at it, but I didn't mind.
I guess I'd help you too.

 

[water]

Katazia,

As we learn more about how the brain works we are seeing even less reason to speculate that souls and spirits might exist.

And as we learn more about the brain, the more important it becomes to realize that some rules and values are needed if humanity is to stay alive.

 

[greywolf]

-Kat-
wouldnt u think that the more we learn about the brain the more we should realize that there are a lot of things that we have yet to discover, let alone understad ?

 

[Katazia]

Rosa,

And as we learn more about the brain, the more important it becomes to realize that some rules and values are needed if humanity is to stay alive.

I don't see the connection. What is the connection between neuroscience and morality? Apart from something very indirect?

Kat

 

[Katazia]

Greywolf,

wouldnt u think that the more we learn about the brain the more we should realize that there are a lot of things that we have yet to discover, let alone understad ?

No that doesn’t make any sense. As we learn more about the brain we improve our ability to establish a more accurate estimate of how much we have yet to learn and discover. This is a continuous process with each new discovery reducing the outstanding workload.

Kat

 

[TheERK]

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging.

Where did I say this? Where did I actually advocate any of this Biblical law as a good thing?

My post claimed that a better Christian is one who follows the Bible literally. Christianity is about Jesus, a character found only (debatable, but let's please not get into that) in the Bible, and he quoted from the OT. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Christianity is all about the Bible.

Just as a 'better' murderer kills the most people possible, a 'better' Christian follows the Bible, word for word, as closely as possible.

 

[water]

Katazia,

I don't see the connection. What is the connection between neuroscience and morality? Apart from something very indirect?

There is an important connection between them, external to neuroscience though.
Science advances, "we are seeing even less reason to speculate that souls and spirits might exist," and we know about how living organisms are made, how they function.

In such a situation, the philosophy of science and the social value of science become important factors of *what is allowed to do*: "Sure, we can clone people. But should we do that? Is it moral? What would it lead to?"

The higher the science, the more obvious the moral choices.
The more obvious the moral choices, the greater the need for a morality code.

 

[JustARide]

That's because the love story is redundant without the reality that death is not final. It makes no sense to tell the good news about Christ's life without there is no bad news. It's just recently that the bad news has become non-PC.

So loving others, as Christ would have you do, or spreading his message of love is pointless if there is no hell? Why? Does "love thy neighbor" carry no weight without a horrendous eternal punishment option? It may not have the grandiose mythical proportions or the "salvation" and heavenly reward attached, but still, it's not a <i>bad</i> idea.

Perhaps if Christians (or followers of any faith predicated on afterlife reward/punishment) stopped living in the future, the present moment might benefit greatly. Suppose death is the end. Would that automatically render any act of love that preceeded it meaningless? Can people not rejoice in a moment - however fleeting - without the concern that it bears directly on some grand eternal scheme?

I've run across a disturbing number of Christians who, it seems, cannot even enjoy life <i>before</i> death if they are not certain that all the bad souls are being properly roasted below them.

Even without the prospect of Heaven or Hell, life can involve a great deal of both pain and pleasure, and I see no reason why our actions here require an eternity of bliss or suffering to supply them with meaning.

To paraphrase Yoda, "Love or do not love. There is no try."

Josh